The Clean Air Act prohibits the knowing release of ozone-depleting and substitute refrigerants during the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or industrial process refrigeration. The existing regulations require that persons servicing or disposing of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerant.
The proposed updates include strengthening leak repair requirements, establishing recordkeeping requirements for the disposal of appliances containing 5 to 50 lb of refrigerant, changes to the technician certification program, and changes for improved readability, compliance, and restructuring of the requirements. As a result, EPA says that this action would reduce emissions of ozone-depleting substances and gases with high global warming potentials.
The existing regulations require that persons servicing or disposing of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerant. Specifically, these provisions include:
- Requiring that technicians be certified to work on appliances
- Restricting the sale of refrigerant to certified technicians
- Specifying the proper evacuation levels before opening up an appliance
- Requiring the use of certified refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment
- Requiring the maintenance and repair of appliances that meet certain size and leak rate thresholds
- Requiring that ozone-depleting refrigerants be removed from appliances prior to disposal
- Requiring that air conditioning and refrigeration equipment be provided with a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate refrigerant recovery
- Requiring that refrigerant reclaimers be certified in order to reclaim and sell used refrigerant
- Establishing standards for technician certification programs, recovery equipment, and quality of reclaimed refrigerant
This rule proposes to update the existing requirements in 40 CFR 82, subpart F that currently apply to ozone-depleting refrigerants and then extend those requirements, as appropriate, to non-ozone-depleting substitute refrigerants, including but not limited to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule
In the first major modification to the hazardous waste regulations in over 10 years, EPA plans to modify and reorganize the hazardous waste generator rule. When adopted, the rule will provide greater flexibility in how hazardous waste is managed and close important gaps in the regulations.
Attend Environmental Resource Center’s live, online session on November 16 to learn:
- New requirements for documenting hazardous waste determinations
- Revised requirements for when and how to submit the Notification of Generator Status form to EPA
- How to take advantage of the episodic generation exclusion to avoid reclassification to a larger generator status
- Definitions of important new terms – “Very Small Quantity Generator” and “Central Accumulation Area”
- How to mark containers, tanks, and containment buildings with new information required at central accumulation areas and satellites
- New conditions under which containers can be left open at satellite accumulation areas
- Updated time and volume limits for satellite accumulation areas
- New documentation requirements for contingency plans and biennial reports
- New requirements for shipping hazardous waste from a VSQG to another facility owned by the same organization
New Exclusions for Solvent Recycling and Hazardous Secondary Materials
EPA’s new final rule on the definition of solid waste creates new opportunities for waste recycling outside the scope of the full hazardous waste regulations. This rule, which went into effect on July 13, 2015, streamlines the regulatory burden for wastes that are legitimately recycled.
The first of the two exclusions is an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for high-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of extending the useful life of the original solvent by keeping the materials in commerce to reproduce a commercial grade of the original solvent product.
The second, and more wide reaching of the two exclusions, is a revision of the existing hazardous secondary material recycling exclusion. This exclusion allows you to recycle, or send off-site for recycling, virtually any hazardous secondary material. Provided you meet the terms of the exclusion, the material will no longer be hazardous waste.
Learn how to take advantage of these exclusions at Environmental Resource Center’s live webcast on December 12 where you will learn:
- Which of your materials qualify under the new exclusions
- What qualifies as a hazardous secondary material
- Which solvents can be remanufactured, and which cannot
- What is a tolling agreement
- What is legitimate recycling
- Generator storage requirements
- What documentation you must maintain
- Requirements for off-site shipments
- Training and emergency planning requirements
- If it is acceptable for the recycler to be outside the US
Charlotte RCRA and DOT Training
Wilmington RCRA and DOT Training
Cleveland RCRA and DOT Training
EPA’s Proposed New Standards for Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals
EPA has proposed new flexible rules at 40 CFR 266 Subpart P for the management of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals by healthcare facilities, long-term care facilities, pharmacies, retail stores, and reverse distributors. The rule is projected to prevent the flushing of more than 6,400 tons of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals annually by banning healthcare facilities from flushing hazardous waste pharmaceuticals down the sink and toilet.
At this session on January 21, you will learn:
- The difference between creditable, non-creditable, and evaluated pharmaceuticals – and who must make this determination
- How the new rule will impact your hazardous waste generator status
- New “empty” definition for unit dose containers, syringes, and other containers
- Conditional exemption for DEA controlled substances
- Requirements for on-site storage
- Waste container management and labeling
- Accumulation time limits
- Sewer disposal prohibition
- Authorized disposal and other management options
- Impact of the new rule on household collection programs
- Manifest and alternative transport tracking documents
- Recordkeeping requirements
- Requirements for reverse distributors
Ways to Transform Water Treatment Plants into Water Resource Recovery Facilities
A new report outlines a range of research and actions needed to transform today’s water treatment plants into water resource recovery facilities that generate clean drinking water, biofuels, chemicals, and other water grades for specific uses, like agriculture. With the nation’s aging water infrastructure, a unique window of opportunity exists to apply new knowledge and technology to create an industry shift from wastewater treatment to water resource recovery. Such a shift offers the potential to reduce the financial burdens on municipalities, decrease stress on energy systems, cut air and water pollution, improve system resiliency to climate impacts, and support local economic activity.
EPA and Partners Announce Plan to Prevent Lung Cancer Deaths Due to Radon Exposure
Exposure to radioactive radon gas is the second leading cause of lung cancer in America. The goal to save these lives will be achieved by reducing high radon levels in five million homes, apartments, schools, and childcare centers. The partnership includes three federal departments and agencies, and nine national organizations.
“EPA is very pleased to be a partner in this important life-saving effort to prevent lung cancer caused by radon. Working together creates new opportunities for reducing the risk from radon. Combining our resources will save American lives by magnifying our effectiveness in preventing exposure to radon in homes and schools,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Strategies include requiring radon testing and reduction systems as a standard practice in housing finance and insurance programs, and institutionalizing radon risk reduction through building code requirements.
The plan broadens the scope and reach of the Federal Radon Action Plan by including the health, scientific, and technical expertise of the national partners.
The collaborative strategy announced recently aligns federal efforts with those of other national organizations dedicated to lowering radon exposure: the American Lung Association (ALA), American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST), the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI), Cancer Survivors Against Radon (CanSAR), the Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN), Citizens for Radioactive Radon Reduction, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and the National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH). In addition to EPA, the federal partners are the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Radon is a radioactive gas that comes from the decay of uranium in the ground. Nearly all soils contain some naturally occurring uranium. Radon seeps up from the soil into buildings where it can accumulate to high levels. Since radon is invisible and odorless, dangerous levels can exist indoors without occupants knowing. Testing is the only way to know the radon level in your home or school. Exposure to radon causes an estimated 21,000 lung cancer deaths annually. After smoking, radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer. However, affordable measures effective in reducing radon indoors are available, and when employed can prevent radon-induced lung cancer and save lives.
Connecticut Issues New 2015 GPLPE
For those facilities operating under the 2010 GPLPE and seeking to maintain limits on their potential to emit, to avoid the applicability of the Title V permitting program, re-registering for authorization under the 2015 GPLPE is most likely necessary.
The GPLPE has several new requirements, as a result of feedback from EPA and interested parties. Most notable of these changes, is a two tiered emissions limitation structure. Registrants will have the option of requesting limitations on their regulated air pollutants of either:
- Less than 50% of the Title V thresholds*
- Up to but no more than 80% of the Title V thresholds*
*Excluding greenhouse gas (GHG) which shall be limited to less than 100% of the Title V threshold.
Facilities that choose to limit their emissions, up to but no more than 80% of the Title V thresholds, excluding GHG, will be subject to additional compliance demonstration requirements that do not otherwise apply to facilities that choose to limit their emission to less than 50%.
Each facility is encouraged to carefully review the 2015 GPLPE and consider the GPLPE's applicability to their facility. DEEP staff are available to assist facilities, as they consider their options, and may be contacted at 860-424-4152.
For facilities that have historically used the GPLPE, as a means to limit potential emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and avoid applicability of Federal NESHAPs (aka MACT standards), you are cautioned to submit a registration for authorization under the GPLPE on or before November 19, 2015.
Generally speaking, facilities that do not have the potential to emit HAPs, at or above the Title V threshold, have more time to review the GPLPE and submit their re-registrations for authorization.
Washington Issues Environmental Penalties for Third Quarter 2015
Ecology works with thousands of businesses and individuals to help them comply with state laws. Penalties are issued in cases where non-compliance continues after Ecology has provided technical assistance or warnings, or for particularly serious violations.
The money owed from penalties may be reduced from the issued amount due to settlement or court rulings. Funds collected go to the state’s general fund or to dedicated pollution prevention accounts.
Ecology strives to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment and promote wise management for current and future generations. When someone pollutes Washington’s air, land, or waters, Ecology enforces state and federal regulations in hopes of changing behavior and deterring future violations.
Baldwin Hardware Corp. and SBD Property Holdings Fined $420,000 for Hazardous Waste Violations
The facility, located at 841 Wyomissing Blvd., manufactured door, bathroom, and lighting hardware before manufacturing operations ceased in 2014.
EPA cited the companies for violating federal and state safeguards governing the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.
Baldwin, headquartered in Lake Forest, California, owned and operated the plant from 1987 through mid-December 2012. The plant was then acquired by Indianapolis-based SBD Property Holdings, an affiliate of Stanley Black and Decker. Together, Baldwin and SBD owned and operated the facility until it was sold in the summer of 2015. According to EPA, violations persisted after the facility was acquired by SBD.
The hazardous wastes involved in the alleged violations were lead-contaminated dust generated during the plant’s forging, polishing, and plating operations, as well as hazardous waste plating solution.
After manufacturing operations ceased at this plant, lead-containing hazardous waste was transported off-site for disposal in several shipments from August 2013 through June 2015.
Electro-Forming Co. Owner Jailed for Repeated Hazardous Waste Violations
Marion Patigler, owner of Electro-Forming, Co., surrendered herself on November 7, 2015, to the county jail to serve a three year sentence for a probation violation. The probation resulted from a criminal action filed by the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office.
Patigler pleaded guilty to nine misdemeanor charges and on behalf of her business, pleaded guilty to an additional four felony counts. Electro-Forming, Co. is located at 130 Nevin Avenue. Patigler had been placed on a five-year probation and ordered to remove hazardous waste from the facility as a condition of probation. In sending Patigler to jail, the court ruled that Patigler failed to comply with that probation requirement.
The criminal charges, originally filed in March 2014, included unlawful storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste; unpermitted operation of a hazardous waste storage and treatment facility; unregistered transportation of hazardous waste to an unpermitted facility; and unlawful handling or storage of hazardous waste causing unreasonable risk of fire, explosion, serious injury or death.
“DTSC has used the full range of its enforcement resources to stop Ms. Patigler’s reckless behavior and protect the community,” said Reed Sato, Chief Counsel for the Department of Toxic Substances Control. “We value the partnership with the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office that brought Ms. Patigler to justice and held her personally accountable for her continual mismanagement of hazardous wastes.”
Patigler’s recent incarceration left hazardous wastes at the facility and DTSC’s Emergency Response Unit secured the site to ensure that all such wastes were properly managed.
DTSC and its contractor will package the waste in containers, including cyanide, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and plating solutions containing copper and hexavalent chromium and will transport them to a licensed disposal site. The process tanks found at the site will be disposed of as either scrap (non-contaminated) or hazardous waste, leaving only the building and machinery after the work is completed.
One of the conditions of her five-year probation was for Patigler to immediately cease operation of her company. Other conditions included cleanup of the business including removal of all hazardous materials, waste and equipment; not engaging in any type of business that generates hazardous waste; and completing 200 hours of community service. She was ordered to pay $50,000 in criminal fines, and Electro-Forming, Co., was ordered to pay $250,000 in criminal fines. In addition, Patigler and the company are liable for $228,000 in restitution to DTSC.
DTSC’s Office of Criminal Investigations began investigating Electro-Forming in 2012. It partnered with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Unit, Richmond City Fire Department, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and the Contra Costa County Central Sanitation District to execute a search warrant and develop evidence of environmental crimes.
DTSC also has a civil lawsuit against Patigler filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court. DTSC has obtained a judgment of over $8 million against the company and is pursuing Patigler for separate penalties.
Environmental Services Company to Pay $150,000 to Address Hazardous Waste Violation
The civil fine also settles allegations that the company didn’t properly manage, treat, and label the hazardous waste it was transporting, storing, and handling at its facilities.
According to the consent judgment approved Friday by Judge Leibensperger in Suffolk Superior Court, ENPRO Services, Inc., is required to submit to an audit of its environmental management practices by an independent auditor. The company also is required to cease all illegal treatment activities and to bring its facilities and its hazardous waste management practices into compliance with the Hazardous Waste Management Act and the Massachusetts Clean Air Act.
“This settlement demonstrates the serious commitment of the Commonwealth to the safety and protection of the public and the environment from the improper transport and management of hazardous waste,” said AG Healey. “We expect companies handling hazardous waste to comply with all aspects of our laws and not to take shortcuts.”
“The proper treatment of hazardous waste is important, because of its potential to impact the environment and public health,” said Commissioner Martin Suuberg of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). “We are pleased with this settlement, because it not only requires the violations to be quickly corrected, but it also requires that an independent third-party audit the company’s operations in Massachusetts, which will lead to improved environmental management systems at the company going forward.”
As an environmental services company, ENPRO offers hazardous waste transportation services to its customers who generate hazardous waste, including gasoline-and-water mixtures. Gasoline-and-water mixtures are hazardous wastes under MassDEP regulations because they can pose a hazard to human health and the environment.
The complaint alleges that since December 2010, ENPRO collected, improperly transported, and treated over a hundred and forty thousand gallons of gas-and-water mixtures. ENPRO improperly treated the gasoline-and-water mixtures by screening and manipulating the mixtures between storage tanks at the defendant’s unlicensed facility on Parker Street in Newburyport to produce a higher quality mixture it then sold for a profit.
According to the complaint, ENPRO claimed that this treatment was subject to certain regulatory exemptions for recycling that permitted it to avoid licensing costs and safety and tracking requirements.
The AG’s Office also alleges in its complaint that in 2012, ENPRO accumulated more than six times its limit of waste oil at its facility on Cary Avenue in Newburyport without properly notifying MassDEP. The complaint also alleges that ENPRO failed to keep documentation of the amount of waste oil received or generated on the site and the amount recycled. According to the complaint, ENPRO failed to label containers of waste oil and failed to keep records showing that it maintained its fuel dispenser and had trained personnel using it.
Of the $150,000 in civil penalties, $42,500 is suspended pending full compliance with the consent judgment.
NASA Fined $50,660 for Environmental Violations at Goddard Space Flight Center
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has agreed to pay a $50,660 penalty to settle alleged violations of federal environmental regulations at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Island, Virginia, the EPA announced recently. The settlement brings the Flight Center into compliance with environmental regulations that help protect communities and the environment from potential exposure to hazardous waste.
The settlement penalty reflects NASA’s compliance efforts, and its cooperation with EPA in the resolution of this matter. As part of the settlement, NASA has neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations, but has certified its compliance with applicable RCRA and Clean Air Act requirements.
MI Metals Fined $58,816 for Hazardous Waste Storage Violations
The settlement addresses compliance with environmental regulations that help protect communities and the environment from potential exposure to hazardous waste.
RCRA is designed to protect public health and the environment, and avoid costly cleanups, by requiring the safe, environmentally sound storage and disposal of hazardous waste.
Following an inspection by officials from EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, EPA cited MI Metals for RCRA violations involving hazardous waste stored at the facility, including caustic cleaning solution and waste paint.
The alleged violations included: failure to keep hazardous waste containers closed during storage; failure to have a hazardous waste storage tank assessed by a professional engineer; failure to conduct required daily inspections of hazardous waste; and inadequate secondary containment to prevent spills. The company was also cited for failure to properly manage universal waste such as fluorescent lamps that may contain mercury or other hazardous substances.
The settlement penalty reflects the company’s compliance efforts, and its cooperation with EPA in the resolution of this matter.
EPA Enforcement Ensures that Solar Company Follows Stormwater Discharge Requirements
According to the complaint filed by EPA’s New England office, Borrego in 2013 and 2014 failed to comply with certain parts of its construction permit when it was directing the construction at the adjacent solar power array sites off Little Rest Road. Work at each of the sites involved disturbing more than an acre of land.
EPA alleged that, because of poor erosion controls, during storms between November 2013 and January 2014, about 10 to 35 cubic yards of sediments were discharged into wetlands and into Taylor Brooks and Tufts Brooks as a result of the violations.
EPA alleged that Borrego violated requirements of its 2012 Construction General Permit by failing to install and maintain erosion controls and to carry out required “best management” practices for controlling storm water.
“The requirements of a construction permit are meant to minimize the amount of damage caused to the environment by stormwater discharges,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office.
The case stems from information provided to EPA by the Warren Conservation Commission, which ordered the company in January 2014 to remove sediments and restoration of the wetlands.
Reduce Food Waste and Feed People, Not Landfills
Imagine 37 million tons of food. Think of how many people that amount could feed, the money it cost to buy, and the resources needed to produce it. Then imagine almost every pound of that sitting in a landfill or incinerator instead of on someone’s dinner table. But it’s not an imaginary scenario: In 2013 alone, Americans threw out over 37 million tons—or 74 billion lb—of food.
The EPA encourages families, businesses, schools, and organizations to reduce this waste with the Sustainable Management of Food program. EPA estimates food is the single biggest category of everyday waste, making up about 21% of municipal solid waste. The rest of the world faces a similar problem, with the United Nations estimating about one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted.
All this waste has significant environmental impacts, especially for our climate. When food goes to landfills, it rots and produces methane, a GHG with 21 times the global warming potential compared to carbon dioxide. EPA believes food should feed people, not landfills. As our population grows and threats from climate change continue, the benefits of reducing food waste will multiply.
EPA and Partners Launch Challenge to Recycle Nutrients from Livestock Waste
Every year, livestock producers manage more than one billion tons of manure, which contains valuable nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorus—that plants need to grow. Challenge participants will develop technologies that extract nutrients from livestock manure to generate products with environmental and economic benefits that farmers can use or sell.
“Scientists and engineers are already building technologies that can recover nutrients, but further development is needed to make them more effective and affordable,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “The Nutrient Recycling Challenge will harness the power of competition to find solutions that are a win-win for farmers, the environment, and the economy.”
During the four-phase competition, innovators will turn their concepts into designs and eventually into working technologies that livestock farms will use in pilot projects.
Phase I, which begins November 16 and ends January 15, calls for papers outlining ideas for these technologies. Phase I prizes will be announced in March and include up to $20,000 cash to be split between up to four semi-finalists; invitation to a two-day partnering and investor summit in Washington, DC; and entry into subsequent phases of the challenge with larger awards. Final awards will be announced January 2017, with farm demonstration pilots to follow.
Partners in the Nutrient Recycling Challenge are:
- American Biogas Council
- American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
- Ben & Jerry’s
- Cabot Creamery Cooperative
- Cooper Farms
- CowPots
- Dairy Farmers of America
- Innovation Center for US Dairy
- Iowa State University
- Marquette University
- National Milk Producers Federation
- National Pork Producers Council
- Newtrient, LLC
- Smithfield Foods
- Strategic Conservation Solutions
- Tyson Foods
- US Department of Agriculture
- Washington State University
- Water Environment Research Federation
- World Wildlife Fund
EPA and the City of Memphis and Shelby County Partner to Address Lead in Homes
“EPA Region 4 is proud to partner with the State of Tennessee, the local health department and the local communities to launch this pilot in the City of Memphis and Shelby County,” said Beverly Banister, Director Air, Pesticide, Toxics Management Division, EPA Southeast Region. “As an Agency, we have a vested interest in making a visible difference in communities and have made it a priority to aid children less than age 6, children living in poverty, and those in homes built before 1978 as they are all vulnerable to the dangers of lead-based paint.”
“We are grateful that the EPA has recognized a need in our city and is taking steps to address it by piloting this program in Memphis,” said Mayor A C Wharton, Jr. “Appropriate training for those who will be renovating, repairing and painting homes with lead-based paint is critical to making these homes safe for some of our most vulnerable citizens. This project represents a growth opportunity for local companies and an opportunity to enhance the safety and livability of these aging homes.”
The rule requires that firms performing renovation, repair, and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities and pre-schools built before 1978 have their firm certified by EPA (or an EPA authorized state), use certified renovators who are trained by EPA-approved training providers and follow lead-safe work practices.
Stockbridge Corp to Pay Up To $50,000 Over Claims of Illegal Dumping of Construction Waste
An Amesbury-based waste hauling firm will pay as much as $50,000 to settle allegations that it illegally dumped multiple loads of construction and demolition waste at an unpermitted site in Methuen, Attorney General Maura Healey announced today.
According to the complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Stockbridge Corp., allegedly violated the state’s solid waste management laws by dumping 34 loads of concrete and other construction and demolition waste debris between October 2007 and June 2008 at an unlawful dump site in Methuen.
“We allege this company violated state law by improperly disposing of construction waste at this unauthorized disposal site,” AG Healey said. “Our office will vigorously enforce the laws that protect public health, safety and the environment in Massachusetts. This settlement will help pay for the evaluation and much-needed cleanup of this site.”
“The illegal dumping of solid waste undermines the laws that have been put in place to protect the Commonwealth and its residents,” said Commissioner Martin Suuberg of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). “The disposal of solid waste materials must be done properly and at facilities that are approved or permitted to accept those materials. MassDEP will pursue companies and individuals that illegally dump solid waste.”
According to the complaint, Thomas Battye, the owner of the Methuen site on Old Ferry Road, never applied for or received the site assignment from the Methuen Board of Health needed to operate a solid waste facility there, and did not receive the necessary solid waste management facility permit from MassDEP.
According to the complaint, inspections by MassDEP in the summer and fall of 2008 revealed vast amounts of solid waste material had been dumped at the site. The inspections revealed the unlawful fill pile contained large amounts of construction and demolition debris, including concrete and asphalt.
Under the terms of the consent judgment, Stockbridge Corp., will pay the state $36,000 over three years, including a $32,400 payment into a special fund established by the Commonwealth to help with the cost of site evaluation and subsequent cleanup work at the Battye site, along with a $3,600 civil penalty. However, if Stockbridge Corp. fails to make the payments when due, the company may be responsible for up to $45,000 in evaluation and cleanup costs, and a $5,000 civil penalty. The consent judgment also prohibits Stockbridge Corp. from unlawfully handling, storing or disposing of construction and demolition waste or other solid waste.
Battye was the subject of a separate action brought by the Commonwealth related to solid waste violations at the Methuen site. The AG’s Office is also pursuing claims against additional waste haulers and demolition contractors who dumped or contracted for solid waste disposal at the Battye site. In December 2013, Dynamic Waste Systems, Inc., agreed to pay more than $93,000 to settle claims that it illegally dumped multiple loads of construction and demolition waste at the site, and earlier this year W. L. French Excavating Corp., paid $62,500 to the state to settle similar claims.
Federal National Mortgage Association Assessed $43,463 Penalty for Waste Site Cleanup Violations at Property in Winchendon
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a $43,463.25 penalty against the Federal National Mortgage Association (also known as “Fannie Mae”) for violating oil and hazardous materials cleanup regulations at a residence it had foreclosed on at 135 Front Street in Winchendon.
MassDEP found that the company failed to notify and take timely action to address a release of heating oil in the basement of the residence at the foreclosed property.
MassDEP was first notified of the oil release in July 2013. However, the agency found out that Fannie Mae had actual knowledge of the heating oil release as early as April 2013 and performed cleanup actions without MassDEP approval and without a written cleanup response plan. The law requires that the company notify MassDEP within two hours of learning of the oil spill. Fannie Mae also failed to respond to MassDEP’s repeated requests for information surrounding the circumstances of the oil release.
In a consent order, Fannie Mae agreed to establish a single point-of-contact for environmental matters within the Commonwealth and to provide that contact information to all of its real estate brokers with instructions to follow in the event of a future release of oil or hazardous materials at its properties within Massachusetts. The oil release in Winchendon is now being addressed.
“Fannie Mae’s local agents and contractors failed to recognize or communicate their cleanup obligations to Fannie Mae,” said MaryJude Pigsley, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester. “Fannie Mae is responsible for the actions or inactions of its agents that resulted in violations of the cleanup regulations.”
Fitchburg Properties Assessed $35,625 Penalty for Asbestos Removal and Handling Violations
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed Fitchburg Properties, LLC a $35,625 penalty for violation of state asbestos regulations that occurred at its facility located at 32 Oak Hill Road in Fitchburg.
In September 2013, MassDEP inspectors observed that asbestos-containing pipe insulation had been improperly removed from a decommissioned heating system. Pieces of dry, friable asbestos-containing insulation were observed on the floor throughout the facility, on a loading dock, and on the ground outside the building at the site. MassDEP required Fitchburg Properties to retain an asbestos contractor licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Labor Standards to clean up and decontaminate all affected parts of the facility.
MassDEP regulations require asbestos-containing materials to be removed wet, and to be sealed while wet into leak-tight containers with appropriate warning labels. Areas where asbestos removal will occur must be sealed off and air filtration equipment must be operated during the abatement work. These requirements are designed to prevent a release of asbestos fibers to the environment, to protect building occupants and the general public from exposure to asbestos fibers, and to avoid contaminating other parts of the building. Notification is required to MassDEP prior to commencing any asbestos removal work so that the agency has the opportunity to conduct inspections to ensure compliance with the regulations.
Under the terms of a consent order, the company will pay $15,000 of the penalty, and the remaining $20,625 will be suspended providing it has no further violations for one year. The company must also follow all asbestos regulations on future projects.
"Before starting demolition or renovation, property owners must identify asbestos-containing materials so they can be properly removed and handled in accordance with the regulations. Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following the required work practices protects workers as well as the general public," said Mary Jude Pigsley, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in Worcester. "Failure to do so will result in penalties, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs."
Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-containing materials; notification requirements; proper removal, handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures; or the asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office for assistance.
A.G. Schneiderman Secures Unprecedented Agreement with Peabody Energy to End Misleading Statements and Disclose Risks Arising from Climate Change
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman recently announced that a first-of-its-kind investigation by his office found that Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody)—the largest publically traded coal company in the world—violated New York laws prohibiting false and misleading conduct in the company’s statements to the public and investors regarding financial risks associated with climate change and potential regulatory responses.
As part of the agreement concluding the investigation, Peabody will file revised shareholder disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission that accurately and objectively represent these risks to investors and the public. The disclosures affirm that “concerns about the environmental impacts of coal combustion…could significantly affect demand for our products or our securities.” Peabody has agreed that all future statements to shareholders and the public will be consistent with the terms of its agreement with the Attorney General’s office and the disclosures it will file with the SEC. The agreement, which is the form of an Assurance of Discontinuance, can be found here.
“As a publicly traded company whose core business generates massive amounts of carbon emissions, Peabody Energy has a responsibility to be honest with its investors and the public about the risks posed by climate change, now and in the future,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “I believe that full and fair disclosures by Peabody and other fossil fuel companies will lead investors to think long and hard about the damage these companies are doing to our planet.”
Attorney General Schneiderman initiated an investigation of Peabody’s financial disclosures in securities filings in 2013. The investigation found that the company repeatedly denied in public financial filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it had the ability to predict the impact that potential regulation of climate change pollution would have on its business, even though Peabody and its consultants actually made projections that such regulation would have severe impacts on the company.
For example, Peabody internally projected that if specific aggressive regulatory action was implemented on existing power plants and future electricity generation in the United States, it would reduce the dollar value of coal sales in its primary United States markets by 33% or more. Peabody also hired an outside consulting firm, which in March 2014 projected that enactment of a $20 per ton carbon tax would reduce the demand for coal as a fuel source in electric power generation in the United States in 2020 by between 38% and 53% compared to 2013 levels.
The Attorney General’s investigation further found that Peabody, in SEC filings as well as other public communications, provided incomplete and one-sided discussions of the findings and projections of the International Energy Agency (IEA) ) relating to future world coal demand. The IEA, considered to be the world’s leading authority on future global energy developments, makes projections about world coal demand based on various scenarios for future world energy production scenarios.
The investigation found that in its projections of the future, Peabody frequently referred in public statements to results of only one of the IEA’s three scenarios for worldwide coal demand: the “Current Policies Scenario,” a status-quo scenario that predicts rising future demand for coal based on an assumption that governments will fail to adopt any new policies or regulations to reduce the amount of climate change pollution—even policies and regulations that the IEA deems governments are likely to adopt. In doing so, Peabody failed to disclose the IEA’s other two scenarios, which are much less favorable projections of world coal demand by the IEA.
Increasing action on reducing climate change pollution through laws, regulations, and policies on the local, state, national and international level is likely. In fact, in its 2014 World Energy Outlook, the IEA states that, as a general matter, coal’s “future use is constrained by measures to tackle pollution and reduce CO2 emissions.” Because of this, the IEA’s other two coal-demand scenarios incorporate future action to combat climate change and therefore project significantly less global demand for coal.
The Attorney General concluded that Peabody’s disclosures denying the ability to reasonably predict the future impact of any climate change regulation on its business, and the company’s statements in SEC filings and in other public communications concerning the IEA’s projections for the future of coal, violated provisions of both New York’s Martin Act and Executive Law which prohibit false and misleading conduct in connection with securities transactions.
Under the agreement announced by Attorney General Schneiderman recently, Peabody commits to ending certain representations to investors and the public that minimize the company’s financial risks related to climate change. In addition, when it does mention the IEA’s projections, Peabody must do so fairly and objectively. Specifically, the agreement requires that the company:
- In its quarterly report being filed with SEC on November 9, 2015, provide disclosures concerning projections that the company has been able to make regarding the impact on the company’s business of certain potential laws, regulations and policies involving climate change, and regarding different scenarios used by the IEA in its projections of demand for coal.
- Not represent in any public communication that it cannot reasonably project or predict the range of impacts that any future laws, regulations, and policies relating to climate change or coal would have on Peabody’s markets, operations, financial condition or cash flow; and
- Correctly and in good faith describe IEA’s scenarios for global demand for coal in its public communications, including requiring that if Peabody cites demand projections under the IEA’s Current Policy Scenario, the company will also cite the Agency’s two less favorable projections.
Peabody serves power generating and metallurgical customers in nearly 25 countries on six continents. Through its subsidiaries, the company has majority interests in 26 coal operations located throughout all major US coal-producing regions and in Australia. The company reports revenues totaling $6.79 billion.
Norwegian Shipping Company and Engineering Officers Convicted of Environmental Crimes and Obstruction of Justice
A federal jury in Mobile, Alabama, has convicted Det Stavangerske Dampskibsselskab AS (DSD Shipping) and three employees with obstructing justice, violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), witness tampering and conspiracy, announced Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and US Attorney Kenyen R. Brown of the Southern District of Alabama. DSD Shipping is a Norwegian-based shipping company that operates crude oil tankers, including the M/T Stavanger Blossom. Also convicted at trial were three senior engineering officers, Bo Gao, Xiaobing Chen and Xin Zhong, employed by DSD Shipping to work aboard the vessel. A fourth employee, Daniel Paul Dancu, pleaded guilty in October.
The operation of marine vessels, like the M/T Stavanger Blossom, generates large quantities of waste oil and oil-contaminated waste water. International and US law requires that these vessels use pollution prevention equipment, known as an oily-water separator, to preclude the discharge of these materials. Should any overboard discharges occur, they must be documented in an oil record book, a log that is regularly inspected by the US Coast Guard.
“We will not tolerate the continued use of the world’s oceans as a dumping ground for contaminated waste,” said Assistant Attorney General Cruden. “These defendants deliberately and egregiously violated the law and fouled the marine environment by dumping waste, then tried to cover it up with false records. We hope this conviction sends a strong message to shippers worldwide that this activity must end, and we will vigorously prosecute those who continue this criminal behavior.”
“I am pleased with the record of this office in pursuing environmental crimes,” said US Attorney Brown. “We will continue to prosecute corporations and individuals to protect our resources here along the Gulf Coast as well as around the World. We need to ensure that all foreign vessels and corporations comply with US Coast Guard Examinations to ensure these resources are protected.”
“The oceans cannot be used as dumping grounds,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Andy Castro of the EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Alabama. “The defendants in this case falsified entries in their vessel’s log books to hide the true nature of its open water discharges. Today’s guilty verdict by a jury should serve as a warning to would-be violators that the American people will not allow the flagrant violation of US laws.”
“This case shows the importance of interagency cooperation and how working together can keep our nation's waterways cleaner and safer for all,” said US Coast Guard Admiral David R. Callahan. “I commend the US Attorney's Office, the Department of Justice, as well as Customs and Border Protection for their diligence in this case. This case is a prime example of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships working as it was intended. The Coast Guard is committed to working with our partners to enforce regulations and hold any violators accountable.”
“CGIS is dedicated to holding those individuals and Corporations accountable who violate United States and International law,” said Resident Agent in Charge John Allen with the US Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS). “CGIS will vigorously prosecute anyone who presents false documents to the US Coast Guard or obstructs vessel examinations performed by the US Coast Guard.”
The evidence presented during the two-week trial demonstrated that in January 2010, DSD Shipping knew that the oily-water separator aboard the M/T Stavanger Blossom was inoperable. In an internal corporate memo, DSD Shipping noted that the device could not properly filter oil-contaminated waste water and stated that individuals “could get caught for polluting” if the problem was not addressed. Rather than repair or replace the oily-water separator, however, DSD Shipping used various methods to bypass the device and force the discharge of oily-wastes into the ocean. During the last months of the vessel’s operation prior to its arrival in the Port of Mobile, the M/T Stavanger Blossom discharged approximately 20,000 gallons of oil-contaminated waste water.
The evidence at trial also established that DSD Shipping employees intentionally discharged fuel oil sludge directly into the ocean. Specifically, crewmembers cleaned the vessel’s fuel oil sludge tank, removed approximately 264 gallons of sludge and placed the waste oil into plastic garbage bags. After hiding the sludge bags aboard the ship from port authorities in Mexico, defendants Chen and Zhong ordered crewmembers to move as many as 100 sludge bags to the deck of the vessel. There, Zhong threw the sludge bags overboard directly into the ocean.
DSD Shipping, Dancu, Gao, Chen and Zhong, all attempted to hide these discharges from the US Coast Guard by making false and fictitious entries in the vessel’s oil record book and garbage record book. Further, after arriving in Mobile, Chen and Zhong lied to the US Coast Guard about the discharge of sludge and ordered lower ranking crewmembers to do the same.
At the conclusion of trial, DSD Shipping was convicted of one count of conspiracy, three counts of violating APPS, three counts of obstruction of justice and one count of witness tampering. Defendant Gao was convicted of one count of conspiracy and two counts of obstruction of justice. Defendant Chen was convicted of one count of violating APPS, three counts of obstruction of justice and one count of witness tampering. Finally, Zhong was convicted of two counts of violating APPS, two counts of obstruction of justice and one count of witness tampering. DSD Shipping could be fined up to $500,000 per count, in addition to other possible penalties. Gao, Chen and Zhong face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for the obstruction of justice charges
Overburdened by Pollution, Puerto Rico Communities Fight Hazardous Waste Incinerator
Five local community groups are saying no to a project that would introduce a major source of pollution and bankrupt municipalities in Puerto Rico, if given federal funding and approval to move forward. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service is weighing the proposal to fund a waste incinerator in Arecibo, Puerto Rico for the New York-based company Energy Answers.
Local opposition to the project is rooted in the fact that Puerto Rico does not need and cannot afford a “waste-to-energy” incinerator that would pollute already-overburdened communities and lock them into decades of generating dirty energy and sending high volumes of waste to incineration. The recent close of the public comment period on the US Department of Agriculture’s draft environmental impact statement for the waste incinerator in Puerto Rico.
Earthjustice, a national nonprofit environmental law firm, and the Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic are representing Amigos Del R?o Guaynabo, Inc., Ciudadanos En Defensa Del Ambiente, Comit? Basura Cero Arecibo, Madres De Negro de Arecibo, and Sierra Club de Puerto Rico and the communities they represent in fighting the Arecibo waste incinerator project. Earthjustice and the Vermont Law School Clinic submitted comments on behalf of the groups. Public actions by the groups have generated more than 5,000 comments asking the federal agency to pull the plug on the proposed incinerator.
Community members and municipalities across Puerto Rico are against the proposed incinerator, a facility which would lock in the most expensive and polluting means to control waste and the most expensive and polluting means to generate electricity—all while exposing communities already suffering from unsafe lead levels and other toxic emissions to even more pollution.
“Throwing federal dollars into this project shows a flagrant disregard for the will of the local affected communities,” said Hannah Chang, Earthjustice attorney. “If this incinerator were built, it would be one of the first such facilities built in the US in two decades, and it would be sited in an area characterized by extreme poverty and with a predominantly minority population already overburdened by pollution.”
Arecibo is the site of many polluting industrial activities, including a secondary lead smelter whose emissions have caused Arecibo to exceed legal limits on lead pollution in the air. Lead is a persistent, highly-damaging neurotoxin. There is broad scientific consensus that there is no safe level of lead exposure.
"To prioritize incineration and landfilling over recycling is defeating common sense and can only be justified by sheer ignorance or blunt corruption,” said Javier Biaggi of the Comit? Basura Cero-Arecibo. “In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act showed us the way—reduce, reuse, recycle and compost. Yet we landfill more than $500 million dollars a year worth of post-consumer raw materials, and now RUS is proposing to fund an incinerator that will burn these materials, producing minimal energy but generating massive amounts of pollution.”
The Puerto Rico waste incinerator project is being challenged in at least four separate legal venues, and 77 of Puerto Rico’s 78 municipalities have publicly refused to send their waste to this proposed facility. The project cannot move forward without federal funding.
“This waste incinerator will adversely affect our environment and our health,” said Teresa S?nchez of Madres De Negro de Arecibo, who has been fighting the incinerator project for five years. “We don’t want this project in Puerto Rico or anywhere on our planet. Our recommendation for garbage management is recycling. We have to leave a livable planet for the next generations.”
"How can we trust the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Department of Agriculture and Puerto Rico's local agencies to protect our health and environmen